'*»;iH{(:i«aiiii'.i!BF:tB>i'ig!{!!'»?i.; 
















«^^« 






'^oV* 



*• .0" 






» A 



«•' 



.>^ 






.0^ *<»••• 




rt» . o " ?■ . 



' -iti,^Ctvt. 



# 

%;!> V 






.xV"^ 
















0^^ 






1 



-0, ^-^^LJft.r "if" 



:V 









'u' , » • o 






■^^ 







C.rv 



V^V "<v^^^/ V^^\*^ %^ 

. <5' .«:^-X /^:^- Vo*' .>^&- %/ 2 



'' V'^^V^ \;^^V* *V^^V'' % 



ST-4?fE OP THE U-NION. 



C-^K&^s^ f^'' -^S P E E C H 

HON. '.. OHN SUTCHINS, 

OF OHIO, 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 9, 18G1. 




The House having under consideration the report from the Eelect committee of thirty-three — 
Mr. HUTCHINS said : 

Mr. Speaker: When Milton was about to record a revolt against the government of God, he 
thought it not unworthy of him to invoke the guidance of that spirit 

"that doth prefer 

Before all temples the upright heart and pure,''y •Sj^'^* 
in the following language : 

' ' What in me is dark 
Illumine ; what is low, raise and support; 
That to the height of this great argument 
I may assert eternal Providence, 
And justify the ways of God to men." 

And now, when about to speak of a revolt as wicked and causeless as that of which Milton wrote, 
I trust it will not be regarded unworthy of me to invoke similar guidance. 

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of this question, I shall not undertake to denounce my political 
friends, or others, who may, under the circumstances which surround them, see proper to differ 
from me. 

From among the many topics which press upon my mind for consideration, growing out of the 
agitated state of the country, I have selected the following as worthy of consideration : 

1 . Have we a government worth preserving ? 

2. What are the alleged causes for its overthrow, and are they sufficient ? 

3. The remedies proposed. 

Mr. Speaker, if the theory advocated by perhaps a majority of the slaveholding States of this 
Union be true, that a State, for any grievances that it may regard as sufficient, has a right, under 
the Constitution, to secede, then we have no Government worthy of preservation, and we need not 
be hatching compromises to save it. Does the right of secession exist under the Constitution as a 
remedy for alleged grievances ? I am aware that this question was discussed much more ably and 
thoroughly than I can pretend to discuss it, long ago, when the right to secede was first claimed by 
South Carolina — as long ago as 18.30. The debates in the Senate between Mr. Webster and Mr. 
Hayne, in 1830, and between Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun, in 1832-33, I think settled the question 
against the right of secession ; and it was crushed out then in South Carolina by the firmness and 
patriotism of General Jackson. 

The history of this government has been ably referred to by gentlemen who have preceded me. 
It will be found that the leading idea of the colonists who landed on Plymouth rock, and at James- 
town, and other points of settlement on this continent, was nationality: and the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution will, I think, carry out that idea. Now, sir, I do not care 
whether the Constitution be regarded as a compact or not. Names do not change results. At all 
events, it was regarded as an instrument of government, binding upon those who adopted it. The 
object of the framers of the Constitution was to adjust the different claims of State sovereignty and 
nationality; and the Constitution maybe regarded as the sun of our political system, and the 
States as planets that revolve around it, the centripetal force of the Constitution not being suffi- 
cient to attract to it and al)sorb the centrifugal force of State sovereignty as to powers not granted 
to the General government ; and the General and State governments were designed to act in 
harmonious concert in their respective orbits. I think it will hardly be charged to the memory 
of the framers of the Constitution, th.at they suppo.^ed they Avere adopting an instrument that 
might be destroyed at the mere volition of a single State; and their opinions have been referred 
to during this discussion to show that thej' intended no such follj'. I will not ijuote them again. 
I will refer to a more recent authority. Some of the cotton States threatened to secede in 1860 if 
California was admitted as a free State; and the Legislature of Mississippi, assuming that the 
people of the State were dissatisfied with the compromise measures of 1850, called a State conven- 
tion, which passed the following resolution : 

'' Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the assorted right of secession from the 
Union, on the part of a State, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was 
framed to e.stablish, and not destroy, the Union of the States ; and that no secession can; in fact, 
take place, witlmut a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in 
its effects itnd 0()iisei(uences, to a civil revolution." 

I quote this resolution of the convention of Mississippi in IS.'il, against the recent action of her 
convention adopting an ordinance of secession. The Constitution was not adopted by the State.? 
in their corporate cnp;icity as States. The peo})le of the different States, acting through State 
governmental organizations, adopted it as a Government for the people of the I'nited States. To 
what practical purpose iiave been the ideas of our leading statesmen and politicians, that con- 
tiguous territory should be acquired for civil and military j)urposes, if, when acquired, it may 
secede without our con.sont ? What becomes of the Monroe doctrine, that we will not allow any 



2 .^%\ 

toreii;n Power to interfere upon this! continent witii the siifety of our ' ''*i pf Government? It was 
npeles.s to acquire, with or without price, the Territories of Louisia ■^^ 'd Florida; it was worse 
than useless to reannex Texas, if they can at will dissolve their com ''^'^ i with this Government, 
without asking its consent. It has, for a long time, been a leading ' . with the slave power, 
that this Government must purchase, at any price, Cuba ; and if it t ' not be purchased, then 
it must be conquered or stolen, it being essentia! for our safety and seL.u.iity. AVe have all heard 
of the Ostend circular, signed by James Buchaniin, John M. Mason, and Pierre Soule ; and I here 
will read an extract from it : 

" Does Cuba in the possession of Spain seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence 
of our cherished Union ? Bhould this question be answered in the affirmative, then by every law, 
human and divine, we shall be justified in ■u-resti ng it. from Spain, if we possess the power ; and 
this upon the very same principle that would justify an individual in tearing down the burning 
house of his neighbor, if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying his 
own home. Under such circumstances, we ought neither to count the cost nor regard the odds 
which Spain might enlist against us. We forbear to enter into the question whether the present 
condition of the Island would justify such a measure. We should, however, be recreant to our 
duty, be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and commit base treason against our posterity, 
shoulil we permit Cuba to be Africanized, and become a second St. Domingo, with all its attendant 
horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our own neighboring shores, seriously 
to endanger, or actually to consume, the fair fabric of our Union. We hear that the course and 
current of events are rapidly tending towards such a catastrophe." 

Mr. Speaker, suppose that, under the advice of the Ostend manifesto, during the administration 
of President Piuchanan, the island of Cuba had been "wrested from Spain" at a cost of $200,000,000, 
and twenty thousand lives, — for, according to the manifesto, "we ought neither to count the cost, 
nor regard the odds which Spain might enlist against us," — and had been admitted into the Union 
on an equal footing with the original States, and she, too, should join in this secession stampede, 
and should resume her sovereignty, and again attach herself to Spain. What would President 
Buchanan say to this' Why, he would probably say, "She had no right to secede; but the 
Government has no power to prevent it." Would not ihe nation and the world prize highly such 
statesmanship? Well, sir, this is the statesmanship of President Buchanan, as exhibited to us in 
his annual message. Secession is revolution, and nothing but revolution ; and it may be defended, 
if the causes are sufficient to justify it in the judgment of the civilized world. I will not, there- 
fore, enlarge upon that point. I regard it as too clear to admit of further argument or controversy. 

Mr. Speaker, I therefore conclude that we have a Government worthy of preservation. But I 
repeat that, if one or more of the stars in our constellation have a right to shoot off at will, inde- 
pendent of the central sun — the Constitution of the United States — then our Government cannot 
inspire confidence at home or command respect abroad; and we need not rack our brains, and 
screw up our consciences to the sticking-point of compro.mise, for it cannot bo compromised into 
respectabilitj'. 

With these brief remarks upon that point, I now come to the consideration of the alleged causes 
for the overthrow of this Government, and whether or not they are suflBcient. It is very difficult 
to get at the exact causes of complaint. When we look to the ordinances of secession and the 
manifestoes of the seceding States, the insufficiencies of the causes for the revolution which they 
have inaugurated must strike every one. 

One of the alleged causes of complaint is the action of several of the Northern States in the pas- 
sage of personal liberty bills. Now, let me remark here, for it is true, that a large majority of 
what are now termed personal liberty bills, were enacted more than ten years ago, before the 
passage of the fugitive slave law, and before James Buchanan was inaugurated President of the 
United States. So far as any of those laws violate any provision of the Constitution of the United 
States, they are null and void. Have the Southern States which are now complaining made any 
efforts to induce the Legislatures of the Northern States to repeal those laws '' Have they sent 
commissioners or agents with a view to test their constitutionality? Not at all. AVhen any State 
North treats a State South as South Carolina did Massachusetts, when she sought in a peaceable 
way to institute an amicable suit in the United States court within the State of South Carolina, 
to test the constitutionality of a certain law of South Carolina, operating oppressively upon the 
citizens of Massachusetts, then I admit that the Southern States will have just cause of complaint. 
But the Northern States never have interposed, and I trust they never will interpose, any obstacles 
to testing the constitutionality of any of their laws. It has not been shown thus far in this debate, 
and I do not believe it will be shown in its continuance, that a single slave has been helped away 
by means of an}' of these personal liberty bills. If, then, these laws are a good cause for a disso- 
lution of the Union, that same cause existed, with as much force as it does to-day, when James 
Buchanan was elected President. 

I know, Mr. Speaker, that a certain kind of property held in the Southern States is liable to 
appropriate to itself the limbs which God Almighty gave it, and sometimes to run away. It has 
been the case ever since slavery was introduced into the country ; it ever will be the case so long 
as the love of liberty has a lodgment in the human breast. Slaves run away — or, to use the more 
constitutional phraseology which we find in modern Southern lexicons, they "secede," they "re- 
sume their sovereignty ;" and all of them that I have ever seen are opposed to "coercion." Well, 
it sometimes happens that this kind of property, in order to get away, ai)propriates a horse, or 
some other item of property, belonging to the master, with a view to enable it more- readily to^ 
" resume its sovereignty ;" and, among slaves, this idea is not very strange, but i.s to be accounted 
for by the fact of their Southern education.- All of them seem willing to account for this property 
on a, fair settlement with their masters ; just as the Southern States say they are ready to .account 
for what they have seized and stolen on a fair settlement with the United States. 

I trust, Mr. Sjieaker, that these personal liberty bills are no cause for a dissolution of the Union. 
They are not relied upon as such. They are mere make-weights to operate on the Soulhern uiind. 
to prejudice the South against the people of the free States. 



It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the nnti-slavery sentiment of the country is such that Southern 
institutions, meaning, of tjouifse, the ric^ht to hold slaves, are insecure The anti-slavery sentiment 
of the free States is not stronger now than it was in ]85fi, wlien James Buchanan was elected 
President. Well, it is feaid that the election of Lincoln and Hamlin is a cause for a dissolution 
of the Union. The pecijde of ihe free States, and a few of the people of the slave States, saw fit, 
under the platform adoj'ted fit Chicago, to vote for the election of Lincoln and Hamlin, as they 
had a right to do under tfa*" Constitution of the United States. It is not alleged that any law has 
been violated in that respect. The faot of the election of Lincoln and Hamlin to the highest. 
otRces in the gift of the American people, by the freemen of the North, cannot be regarded as a 
just cause for a dissolution of tlie Union. If it were, then if Breckenridge and Lane had been 
elected on their jjlatform, which was as obnoxious to the North as the Chicago platform was to the 
South, then the North would have been justified in seceding from this Union. Every one must see 
the absurdity of that. 

Jlr. Speaker, there are complaints on both sides; and I am sorry to be obliged, as a matter of 
defence, to assert that, in my judgment, the North has to-day more cause to complain of tlie slave 
States than the slave States have to complain of the free States. 

AVe all know that our citizens, who are secured, or ought to be secured, under the broad pro- 
visions of the Constitution of the United States, against unreasonable searches and seizures when 
travelling in the Southern States, have been mobbed, robbed, tarred and feathered, whipped and 
burned, and«have had all sorts of indignities heaped upon them. I do not bring this charge against 
Southern States as States. Not at all. I bring it only against citizens of those States. The 
governments are not responsible for it. But it is no cause for a dissolution of the Union. It can 
be corrected in the Union. But I do not believe that the citizens of Southern States have been so 
badly treated in the free States as the citizens of free States have been in Southern States. 

The fugitive slave law was passed in 1850 ; it was obnoxious to the people of the free States; it 
was opposed to all their Anglo-Saxon notions of jurisprudence ; and some free States thought it 
necessary, to guard their free citizens against the summary process of that law, to pass personal 
liberty bills. The fugitive slave law is justly obnoxious to the sentiment of the people of the free 
States ; but that is no cause for a dissolution of the Union. A large, or at least, a respectable 
minority of the people of the free States, do not believe there is any constitutional authority to 
pass such a law, while they acknowledge the right of the slaveholder to recover hisproj)erty under 
the provision of the Constitution of the United States. But they believe that the duty devolve.-; 
on State Legislatures to provide a remedy by which the right of the slaveholder could be asserted 
in accordance with the forms of law in the free States. But so long as the Supreme Court of the 
United States continue to declare that law constitutional, so long, I have no doubt, it will be en- 
forced faithfully in the North, however hard and o])pressive the people of the free States may 
regard it. The people of the free States are a law-abiding people. 
"For there, before almighty law, 
High birth, high place, with pious awe, 

In reverend homage bend. 
There man"s free spirit unconstrained, 
Exults in man's best rights maintained. 
Rights, which by ancient valor gained, 
From age to age descend." 

I have here a statement of some of the outrages recently perpetrated in Southern States against 
Northern citizens; and I do not introduce it for the purpose of stirring up any bad blood or any 
bad feeling. I admit that excesses are committed on both sides of the line. V/i(h the iicrmission 
of the House, I will read this extract from the Mercer county (Pennsylvania) Dispatch : 

" Wo have been made acquainted with the facts of recent outrages committed at the South on 
citizens of the North, two of them long residents of Mercer county, which show the despotism of 
slavery and the wrongs perpetrated at its bidding. In November last, Michael Donohue and James 
Grilhn, of Fairview township, went to Pittsburg, intending to work their way down the river on a 
coal boat, and work during the winter at some place in the Southern States. These boats having 
all gone, they took passage on a steamboat, and, in a short time, readied Memphis, Tennessee, 
and, in company with one or two others, started back into the country to procure employment. 
They had gone but a short distance, when they were intercepted by what purported to be a com- 
mittee of vigilance, the captain of which asked Donohue where he was from, lie replied, from 
Virginia. The other said he was not, but was a -damned Methodist jireachcr" — a sect for which 
Donohue and his companion have very little sympathy. He protested that this was not .so ; that ho 
was no Abolitionist, and had never voted anything but the Democratic ticket ; all of which is true. 
But it availed him not : and he was told that he had his choice, either to be flogged or tarred and 
cottoned. He preferred the latter; when he was stri[)ped and the tar and cotton applied to him. 
The same choice was given to tlriflin, who preferred the flogging. He was stripped to the shirt, 
and a large wagon whip put into the hands of a negro to carry out the sentence of thirty-seven 
lashes, but, after ho received twenty, he was let of. While the punishment was inflicted, three of 
the mob stood around him with drawn pistols, to shoot him if he made any resistance. 

••Another of the eompany, with the two former, was told that he had to be either hung or tarred 
and cottoned. He, of course, chose the latter, and they were apjilied. Another was told that he 
had his choice, either to be hung or branded on the cheek; and, cho.«ing the latter, the outrage 
was inflicted on him. The four were then driven oflf with dogs, and firing of pistols after them." 

Now, the.'^e are wrongs for which remedies ought to be provided ; and, fearing that the respect- 
able and p.ntriotic committee of thirty-throe might omit this matter, and inasmuch as we supposed 
that we were to have a final sottleme'nt of all existing accounts, I submitted a resolution calling 
attention to these facts ; but no remedy has been proposed. 

Mr. M.WNARD. I desire to state to the gentleman from Ohio, that the laws of Tennessee 
provide for the punishment of such offences. 

Mr. CAllEY. I object. 



Mr. MAYNARD. That objection cumes with a very bad grace from the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Carev], who was allowed yesterday to interrupt the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Smith]. i 

Mr. HUTCHINGS. I was about to remark that I brought thi^ ujl ut this time that I might 
hereafter call on the chairman of the committee of thirty-three to prove that this matter has not 
been adjusted, so that it shall not be barred by what might be called^ res adjudicata. 

Mr. MAYNARD. I simply wish to state that, by the laws of Tennessee, if that outrage had 
been perpetrated as stated in the paper, those men could not only be made to answer in damages, 
but could also be imprisoned for years in the penitentiary. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. I have no doubt of that fact. And all those outrages on what you call 
Southern rights are also punished by the laws of the freo States. I am glad to say that I do not 
regard this as any just cause for a dissolution of the Union. I introduce the matter to show that 
if charges are to be made, they can be made on the one side as well as on the other. 

I now propose, Mr. Speaker, to consider very briefly the remedies proposed for the difficulties 
under which we are laboring. I come, in the first place, to the report of the committee of thirty- 
three. I have great respect, sir, for the respectability and patriotism of the members of that illus- 
trious committee. I voted against it formation, because I did not believe that anything had 
occurred, or was likely to occur, requiring the interposition of such a committee. That committee 
has made a report. To some of the propositions reported, there is no very great objection. There 
is, however, a clause of the report to which I have some objection. After referring to the charge 
against the free States, of the President, in his annual message, without contradicting it, the 
chairman of the committee uses the following language : 

"Publications emanating from the newspaper or periodical press, having a tendency to promote 
domestic insurrection in any of the States, and circulated with that intent, are, in the judgment 
of the committee, highly criminal, and should be so treated by the laws of the several State.=. 
The right of free discussion, while it is regarded as absolutely necessary to the maintenance of 
free government, may be expected, in times of great excitement, to run into occasional licentious- 
ness. The corrective of this evil remains with the State governments ; and the committee do not 
doubt that the desired corrective will be promptly applied in all cases when the evil shall have 
assumed a formidable aspect ; while the just and rational freedom of speech and of the oress will 
be carefully preserved." 

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that that is the carefully prepared language of the distinguished 
and eloquent chairman of that committee ; but, in my judgment, it contains principles more fatal 
to the liberty of the press than the famous sedition law of 1798. The gentleman undertook, in his 
speech, to break the force of that passage, and soften down its meaning, by stating that, if such 
circulation were intended to promote domestic insurrection, it ought to be punished in the free 
States, relying upon the criminal intent to work a conviction. The chairman of that committee 
is a good lawyer; and no one knows better than he that the maxim of criminal law is, that a man is 
inesumed to 'intend what is the natural and necessary result of the act which he commit.s. How 
easy, therefore, it would be to indict the Xew Y'ork Tribune, the New Y'ork Evening Post, the 
New Y'ork Independent, or any other out-spoken anti-slavery paper, for a publication that slavery 
is wrong, that slaveholding is a crime ; and on the trial, to claim that such publications tends to 
make slaves discontented, and therefore tends tjj produce insurrection. The papers to which I 
have referred are already regarded insurrectionary in slaveholding States; for the reason, as it is 
claimed, that they are calculated to produce insurrection ; and if these papers were in slaveholding 
States, they would be suppressed under the rule laid down by the chairman of the committee. 

The gentleman, in his speech, referred to the efforts of Lord Erskine to take from the courts 
and give to the jury the right to judge of the criminal intent of a publication, and that, through 
his efforts, the law of England and of this country now is, that the jury, and not the court, is to 
pass upon the intent of the publication. It occurred to me as singular, that the gentleman should 
refer to Lord Esrkine as an authority to restrict the liberty of the pres's, when it is well known 
that one of the great efforts of his life was the defence of the liberty of the press, in the celebra- 
ted case of the Dean of St. Asaph, for the publication of a tract illustrating the general principles 
of government, written by Sir William Jones. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio that, having been a member of the 
committee of thirty-three, I understand the proposition laid down by the chairman of the commit- 
tee has reference to the publication and circulation of documents intended to stir up insurrection 
in the slave States. Does the gentleman approve the converse of the doctrine ? 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Who is to be the judge of what is insurrectionary? That is a nice question, 
depending upon circumstances. 

Sir James Mackintosh, in his great oration in defence of Jean Peltier, which Erskine pro- 
nounced to be "a splendid monument of genius, learning, and eloquence," said : 

"Those who slowly build up the fabric of our laws, never attempted anything so absurd as to 
define by any precise rule the obscure and shifting boundaries which divide libel from history or 
discussion." 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I reply that a newspaper is supposed to be published for pubhc information. 
There should be a power somewhere to judge of the criminnlity of articles published. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. What I fear is that after the demoralized state of public sentiment in the 
free States, which some of these compromising propositions may bring about, that it will be 
very easy to find pretenses for causing the suppression of publications of the character I have 
mentioned. u ■ • 

Mr. STRANTON. I hope my colleague will answer the question directly, whether he is in 
favor of permitting papers to he" published for the purpose of stirring up insurrection. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. No, sir, I am not: and I am not in favor of establishing any new doctrine 
whereby anti-slavery publications may be suppressed under the pretext that they may be published 
"with the intent" to stir up insurrection. I do not want to compromise the liberty of the press, 
that slavery may have additional protection and guarantees. I am not in favor of further restrict- 
ing the liberty of the press. 



Mr. CAMPBELL. Neither am 1 ; but I :uu in ikvor of placing proper guaida upon the licen- 
tiousness of the press. 

Mr. nUTCHIN?. Ifj it is not proposed to change the existing law, why is the subject referred 
to by the committee? I commend the sentiments of that brilliant oration of Sir James Mackin- 
tosh to the gentleman; from Pennsylvania, or anybody else, who, under any pretence whatever, 
shall undertake to stifle^ freedom of speech or restrict the liberty of the press in this country. 

Mr. COX. I wish to inake an inquiry of my colleague. I wish to know whether I understand 
his answer to the que.-tion of my other colleague [Mr. Stantox]. I understand him to say that 
he would not be in favor of publications which are calculated to promote servile insurrections." Is 
that the answer he gives ? 

Mr. HUTCIIINS. Yes, sir ; but not in the fu-t/rt Icniguage of your question. 
Mr. COX. I ask him, then, if he would be in favor of the publication of such documents as 
Theodore Parker's programme, in which he lays down the doctrine that slaves may murder, steal, 
and rob, for the purpose of obtaining their freedom? 

Mr. HUTCHINS. I believe I have not read that programme. I do not recollect its contents 
Mr. EDGERTON. I will answer the gentleman. 

Mr. COX. I put no question to that gentleman. I ask my other colleague if he will answer 
my interrogatory ? 

Mr. HUTCHINS. I will reply to my colleagne in this wise. I presume I am not so familiar 
with the platform of principles of Theodore Parker as he is. I do not now know whether or not, 
I have read his programme. I have read some of his sermons and anti-slavery publications. If 
I have read the programme to which the gentleman refers, I cannot now call to mind its language, 
and could not, therefore, say whether or not I would favor its publication. I would not make its 
publication criminal. 

Mr. COX. It is published in the New York Tribune. 
Mr. CAREY'. I object to any further interruptions. 

Mr. HUTCHINS. Mr. Speaker, I have made my criticisms upon the report of the committee 
of thirty-three, I trust, in all kindness and respect for the members of that committee. I believe 
the doctrine is dangerous, and I protest against it. 

Now, to the specitic remedies proposed by the committee : I am opposed to undertaking to save 
this Union at the present time by a compromise of any sort by which any new guarantees°shall be 
given to slavery, and I will brietly give my reasons why some of the propositions reported by the 
committee of thirty-three, which would, under other circumstances, command my vote, will not 
?ww receive my assent. What do we understand by a compromise? My dictionary teaches me 
that it is a mutual giving up on each side of some controversy or some question that there is a dis- 
pute about. Now, I want to know what concession on the part of the slave States this committee 
of thirty-three, or anybody else, has recommended for our consideration ? What right do they 
concede by any propo.'^ition that has been submitted? I say, not one single thing, 'e.'ccept the 
amendment to the fugitive slave law, and that amounts to very little in my judgm'ent. Y'et wo 
are called upon day after day to ignore party platforms and principles, and to compromise, by 
conceding all that is demanded to placate those who are in rebellion against the Government. ' 

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great many final settlements of the slavery question, and every one 
of them was to be an everlasting finality. The c(i|jipromise measures of 1820 were to be an eternal 
finality. The compromise measures of 1S.50 were to inaugurate a political millennium, when the 
lion of slavery was to lie down with the lamb of freedom, so reconciled that a child might lead 
them. Sir, who violated the compromise of 1820? Who violated the compromise of 1850 ? Not 
the free States of this Union. No, sir; I a.ssert as a fact, that in no single instance, where it wa.-: 
supposed this question of slavery was compromised and settled as between the free and slave States, 
have the free States, directly or indirectly, violated it. If they have, I challenge the advocates 
of slavery upon this floor to show it. But in every instance these compromises have been disre- 
garded by the slaveholding interest. In 1854 the interest of slavery procured the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise, and the interest of freedom resisted it. 

I am opposed to any new compromises. They have not been, and cannot in the nature of things, 
he productive of permanent good or lasting peace. They only postpone and complicate difficulties! 
I do not see why any one should desire to increase the influence and power of shivery It has di- 
vided all political and religious organizations connected with it, that it could not'control; and 
now it seeks to destroy the Government, if it will not yield to its inexorable demands. 

The resolution of the committee of thirty-three is in these words : "Be it resolved hij the Senate 
find Horisc. nf Representatives of the United States of America in Cnncress nssemhled (two-third.^ 
of both Houses concurring), that the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the seve- 
ral States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three- 
fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitu- 
tion : 

"Art 12. No amendment of this Constitution having for its object any interference within the 
States with the relation between their citizens and those described in section second of first article 
of the Constitution as 'all other persons,' shall originate with any State that does not recognize 
that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States 
composing the Union." 

I affirm that I never heard a Republican anywhere who claimed the right to interfere, by an act of 
Congress, with the institution of slavery as it exists in the several States of this Union. I object 
to this amendment, as being against the spirit of the age. If a simple proposition had been re- 
ported by the committee, that Congri-ss should not interfere with the question of slavery in the 
States, I do not know but it would have commanded my assent, for I understand that to be the 
Constitution now. But here is a proposition which undertakes to prevent an amendment of the Con- 
stitution upon a certain subject, without the consent of all the States. In other words, it makes 
amendment upon that subject impossible. Why should the people of this country on oiu- subject be 
prevented from amending the Constitution, when they are at liberty to amend it on all other subjects? 



The next proposition is tlie admission of JMow Mexioo into tlie Union as ti State. 'Wliile I ain 
not disposed to regard tiie .admission of New Mexico under certain circumstances as anytiiing 
wrong, yet I assert that at the present time there is no necessity for its a«lniission. It is said that 
Territory is secured to slavery by virtue of the compromise measurrs of i'850, and the Dred Scott 
decision. If so, ouf!;ht not the South be contented witli that ? AVhenevei) New Mexico ap))lies for 
admission into this Union with a proper constitution, I will take her oa.se into consideration. 

There is one other portion of the report of the committee which, I think, is more objectionable 
than any other. I am sorry that I have not the time to argue it at length. It is a proposition to 
take by law from the executive officers of the several States of this Union, who are elected by, and 
are responsible to, the people, the duty of surrendering fugitives from justice, and to lodge it in 
the judges of the district courts of the United States, appointed by the President of the United 
States for life, and who are not responsible to the people. 

I object to it as a monstrous proposition, and full of danger to the liberties of the people. Be- 
fore I would vote for it, I must have coupled with it a propo.'iition to amend the Constitution of 
the United States, making the judges of the circuit courts of the United States elective by a vote 
of the people in the districts where they serve, and to hold their offices, not for life, but for a term 
of years. 

I will next refer to what is called the Crittenden proposition. There have been presented to us 
many petitions for the adoption of these propositions as an amendment to the Constitution, and I 
liave no doubt that many signatures have been obtained on the supposition that these propositions 
are identical with the Missouri compromise, which was repealed in 1854. They are, in form and 
substance, materially different. The Missouri compromise simply prohibited slavery in all the 
Louisiana Territory, not included in ihe State of Missouri, north of 36° 30^, and left its existence 
south of that line an open question. 

The Crittenden propositions provide : 

1. That in all the Territory of the United States, now held ox heictifier acqidi ei! , south of latitude 
30" 30', slavery of the African xAc^is hereby recogiiizod us existing, aadsluill not be interfered -with 
hi/ Congress ; hut shall be protected as property, by all the departments of the territorial govern- 
ment, during its continuance. 

2. "That Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdic- 
tion, and situated within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves." 

3. That Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia., so long as 
it exists in the States of Maryland and Virginia, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor 
without just compensation. 

4. That Congress shall not interfere with the transportation of slaves from one State to another, 
or to a Territory, in which slaves are permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by sea, 
by land, or by navigable rivers. 

" .'j. That the United States shall pay the owner, who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugi- 
tive slave, in all cases when the marshal or other officer, whose dutj' it was to arrest a fugitive, 
was pre'ented from arresting by violence or intimidation, or when, alter arrest, the fugitive was 
rescued by force. And that the Uni,ted States shall have power to reimburse themselves by impos- 
ing and collecting a tax on the county or city ip which the violence, intimidation, or rescue was 
committed, equal in amount to the sum paid, with interest and the costs of collection. And the 
county or city may sue the persons who prevented the arrest or committed the rescue, and recover 
the amount paid. 

6. That no future amendment shall affect the five preceding propositions, nor the third para- 
graph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution.: nor the third paragraph of the 
second section of the fuurth article of the Constitution ; and no amendment ."shall be made to the 
Constitution which shall give power to Congress to abolish slavery in the States. 

7. That the elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, State, territorial, or 
municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race. 

8. That the United States shall have power to acquire, from time to time, districts of country 
in Africa or South America, for the colonization, at the expense of the Federal Treasury, of sucli 
free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits, and 
from the District of Columbia. 

I cannot examine these atrocious propositions in detail. A more carefully guarded plan for ihe 
perpetuation of slavery in this country eould not well be devised. Every imaginable security is 
here provided for. It gives a constitutional recognition of slavery in all territory now owned 
and hereafter to he acquired south of latitude 36° 30'. It proposes an irrepealable constitutional 
slave code for the Territories south of 36° 30'; and the recent Democratic convention in Ohio 
adopted it, and other Democratic conventions in free States have proposed to adopt the Crittenden 
plan of compromise. 

Why did the Democrats object to a legislative slave code, at Charleston and Baltimore, if they 
are so ready now to adopt a constitutional one ? They feared to go before the people on that issue. 
This is the plan of compromise which Republicans, day after day, are eloquently appealed to to 
adopt ; and they are charged with criminal partisan obstinacy, because they will not adopt this 
plan to placate the slave power, now intent on destroying the Government. Mr. Speaker, I 
believe the people of the free States, when they fairly understand these propositions, will spurn 
them as an insult. Now, sir. what are the circumstances under which these amendments to ll-.e 
Constitution and other propositions of compromise are proposed? Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal 
Hamlin have been lawfully elected President and Vice-President, upon a platform opposed to 
many if not all of these propositions of compromise. Other parties went into the canvass with 
their candidates and platforms, and the verdict of the people was invoked in relation to them. 
The verdict has been rendered fairly, without fraud, and without connivance, in favor of the prin- 
ciple that our Territories are forever to remain free. What is the proposition? Before that 
verdict is rendered into a judgment, a proposition comes up for a new trial to set it a^ide. 

We find Republican lawyers standing here to advocate the rights of their clients, willing to set 



7 

aside that verdict before ^it is rciidered into judgment. Why must it be done? Because it is said, 
if that verdict is render(?il in ft" judgment, then a certain number of the slaveholding States will 
break up this Government, poes not every one see, if we grant them what they desire, it will 
sap the very foundation pf the Government? It will invite similar rebellion in relation to any 
interest that may feel cisturliJed by the result of an election. There are other interests in this 
country, besides those of sla-Very, which may feel aggrieved at the result of an election ; and if we 
encourage the idea uhat the verdict of the people may be set aside, we cannot tix where it shall 
terminate. We are entitled to our judgment, and we intend to have it, by the help of Almighty 
God, and the strong arms of the people of all sections. 

We are appealed to, sir, as partisans. It is said that we are indifferent to the actual condition 
of the country. My colleague from Ohio [Mr. Cox] made a very able argument against the right 
of a State to secede; but, like other Northern Democrats, he is opposed to secession, but objects to 
coercion in order to prevent it. They are like the man who, when asked whether he approved the 
Maine liquor law, said that he did, but he was very much opposed to its execution. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COX. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. HUTCHINGS. I cannot jiist now. 

Mr. COX. The gentleman misrepresents me , 

Mr. HUTCHINGS. The Democratic party, Mr. Speaker, is attempting to make capital out of 
this controversy. I have no doubt my colleague from the Columbus district [Mr. Cox] is in favor 
of this Union, provided he can preserve it and destroy the Republican party. I am not ijuite sure 
he is heartily in favor of it, if the Kepublican party is to remain in power. Why do I judge him 
thus? I find him upon every occasion active and instant, in season and out of season, in hunting 
tacts and furnishing Southern men with material to prejudice the already e.^cited public mind of 
the South. He appears to have implicit faith in compromises. He said, in his speech the other 
day, that "sacrifice and comjtromise are words of honorable import; the one gave us Calvary, the 
other the Constitution." The gentleman's rhetoric is well ; but in its practical application to the 
subject in controversy it is meaningless. Patriotism and statesmanship gave us the Constitution, 
slightly marred by compromise ; but let it stand. The word compromise has been too much dese- 
crated, of late, in our political history, to be talismanic now to save the Union. 

I am not surprised that the gentleman should use the word sacrifice as connected with compro- 
mise, after his announcement that he was willing to vote for the Crittenden proposition, because 
it involved a sacrifice of his political professions. 

Before the election he was for popular sovereignty, and objected to even a legislative slave code 
for the Territories; but now he declares his readiness to vote for a constitutional slave code. It 
is not, therefore, strange that he should regard sacrifice as a better word to use, in connection with 
these propositions, than compromise; and I think, Mr. Speaker, that " «af;//fVc"' accurately defines 
most of these propositions which go under the nomenclature of compromise ; and the question 
really is, shall the people of the free States sacrifice principles which, in their judgment, are essen- 
tial to the welfare of the Republic, to placate those who are plotting its overthrow ? Others may, 
but I will NEVER knowingly do it. 

Mr. Speaker, the Crittenden pbm — which is misnamed compromise — would no more be a final 
settlement of the slavery question, than the different compromises heretofore adopted have been. 
What slaveholders deraaml, is supremacy in the Government; nothing short of this will satisfy 
them. What most alarms them, at this time, is the growing power of tlie free States, as shown by 
the recent census. If my colleague from the Columbus district wishes at once to reach the root of 
the difficulty, he must sacrifice still further his political principles ; and, as he appears to bo in a 
sacrificing mood, I would suggest what, for a time at least, would restore peace to the country and 
coax the cotton States to lay down the weapons of their rebellion. The power of free States, he 
will remember, is the chief difl'icuUy. Let him, then, destroy their free-.school system ; put down 
free speech; silence the press and pulpit: put a censorship upon their literature; dry up the 
source of their power; paralyze the energies of their prosperity; destroy the emblems of their 
civilization ; eradicate from the breasts of their people the love of justice and the hatred of oppres- 
sion ; and he will have brought about a final settlement of the slavery question. This would out- 
Crittenden Crittenden. 

■Mr. Speaker, the conspiracy to destroy this Government is extensive and wide spread, pene- 
trating every department of the (iovernment ; and, but for providential interposition, it might 
iiave succeeded. I cannot better define this great crime than to quote from an editorial article from 
the Baltimore Sun, under the head of "The Great Crime of History,"' omitting the editorial 
" we." 

" In all the historic annals of our race, I can point to no crime so great, so infamous, so purely 
vicious, because so completely causeless and inexcusable, as that which has dissolved the Union (if 
these States. And that there should be any man in this southern section of our common territory 
who can regard the criminal processes, nnd the reckless and relentless perpetrators of this great 
crime, with any degree of toleration, is to me perfectly incomprehensible.'' 

The eloquent editor endeavored to fasten this great crime upon others ; but I charge it upon him, 
and those sympathizing with him, who counsel treason and apologize for traitors. This great crime 
must be put down as other crimes are put down — by coercion. The (piestion is not now whether 
the (iovernment should coerce a State, but whether the people of a State shall coerce the Govern- 
ment. Our ling has been insulted, our forts have been captured, and our ])roperty has been stolen : 
and no Government can exist without coercing obedience to its laws, and putting down organi/.ed 
rebellion, however formidable it niay be. Our forts must be recaptured, our stolen prcq)erty 
recovered, the Constitution and laws must be obeyed. If that means coercion, then I ain for 
cuercii))!.. 

I believe that a large majority in the shave States are yet loyal to the Constitution, and that 
there is a Union feeling in the States which have passed ordinances of secession that will yet put 
down rebellion there. It is, for the time being, overborne by the terrorism which prevails. 1 
think the reaction has already commenced. AVoll. it is said wo must do soniotbing to aid this 

« 

\ 



8 

reaction, and at least save the border slave States. Sir, is not th=i Constitution as it is, broad 
enough for all Union men to stand upon ? It is not proposed to take, frciii" the people of the slave 
States one single constitutional guarantee which they now have. 

At the commencement of this session, I was opposed to all meashres w'hich held out plans of 
compromise ; and I firmly believe that the position of the Union me',i in ihe border slave States 
would have been stronger to-day, if a majority of this House had givfrs-ihem the firm platform of 
the Constitution to stand on, instead of throwing to them rotten planks of compromise, which 
must ultimately give way before the surging waves of the disunion fanaticism that is sweeping over 
those States. I know their position is embarrassing ; and if they can stand at all, they must stand 
upon the declaration of General Jackson, that ''the JJnioii must be preserved.''^ 

I am willing to unite with all men who are for the integrity of the Union. I do not thereby 
adopt their views upon the slavery question, or other questions, nor do they adopt mine. If the 
people of any State desire the Constitution amended, they can submit propositions of amendment ; 
and they would be entitled to a respectful consideration, if not coupled with a threat to break up 
the Government, if not granted. 

I hope, sir, that the Constitution will 7ieuer be so amended as to give any additional guarantees 
to slavery. All who vote for such amendments are guilty of its criminality and injustice. All the 
elements of agitation are now at work to bring about such amendments ; but I trust they will sig- 
nally fail. The people are still true to their convictions, and, whatever their representatives may 
do, they will never, I trust, in the eloquent language of Dr. Channing, "give countenance to the 
doctrine which all tyrants hold, that material power, physical pain, is mightier than the convictions 
of reason, than the principle of duty, than the love of God and mankind." They will, if necessary, 
with warm hearts and strong arms, rally to the support of a jtist Government; and let us, their 
Representatives, stand fikm to our convictions, leaving the result in the hands of that Providence 
that has never forsaken us in the darkest hour of our history. 

Mr. cox of Ohio having replied to some of the remarks of Mr. Hutchins, Mr. H. spoke as 
follows : — 

MR. HUTCHINS. I made no personal attack upon my colleague. Against his political acts I 
have had, and now have, some little criticism to make; because, on every possible occasion that 
he could get the ear of this House, he has seen fit to denounce my constituents as enemies to the 
Union, and as abettors of the raid of John Brown. He even brought against the judges of the 
State the charge of singing the Marseillaise on the bench ; and also against the citizens of the 
Western Reserve, the same charge of singing the same patriotic song— through their noses. 
[Laughter.] 

Now, my constituents are a humane and Christian people. They are opposed to cruelty in any 
shape, or to any sort of people ; and if they had known the sensitiveness of my colleague, and the 
nervousness of his disposition, they certainly never would have sung in his presence that beautiful 
Marseillaise, to which he objects, with the nasal twang. [Laugliter.J 

I found fault with my colleague because he undertook to furnish the gentleman from Virginia, 
[Mr. Leake I — who is, in good faith, I believe, in favor of secession as a remedy— with materials 
to prejudice him against the people and Governor of Ohio, growing out of the controversy for the 
surrender of criminals on the application of the Governor of Virginia. I thought that was unfair 
on the part of my colleague. 

Mr. LEAKE. Will the gentleman permit me ? [Cries of " No I" " No !" and laughter.] The 
gentleman's time can be extended. [Repeated shouts of "No I" "No I" " Let him go on I"' Ac] 
Mr. SICKLES. No interference from any outsider. 
Mr. CURTIS. I object to any other interruptions. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio must not be interrupted. His five minutes are 
running fast. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HUTCHINS. I thought it hardly ftiir or patriotic on his part thus further to add fuel to 
the flame of Southern excitement, if the real object of the gentleman was to preserve this 
Union instead of endeavoring to destroy it ; and therefore, I said that I thought, not from any- 
thing he said, but from his conduct on this floor, that he was willing to preserve the gloriou.s 
Union, if he could do it by demoralizing and prejudicing the public mind against the Republican 
party, so that he could aid in restoring his own party to power. That was the reason I commented 
on his conduct. I thought it was unfair. 

I have made no attack on ray other colleague [Mu. Corwin] ; and if I did, he is abundantly 
competent to defend himself, without the aid of the gentleman. I criticized, to be sure, as I had 
a right to do, some of the positions which he saw fit to take in his report. I have denounced 
nobody who may not agree with me in regard to these matters. We have all a perfect right to 
difler, and to difl"er as Republicans and friends of the Union. Therefore, the gentleman [Mr. Cox] 
can make no capital against me, either in my district, or anywhere else, by charging me with an 
attack on Governor Corwin. 

The gentleman has made an attack upon Mr. Giddings. He needs no defence from me. His 
acts in this House for twenty years will stand the test of criticism now and hereafter. Attacks are 
frequently made upon him by members here ; and I will only say, that his name will be remem- 
bered with gratitude when the names of those who assail him are forgotten. I deny that he has 
countenanced insurrection on this floor or elsewhere. 

Now, this is all that I desired to say. I am willing that my constituents shall stand by their 
record, shall stand by their position. I will stand by mine. I am in favor of the Union as it is, 
and as our fathers gave it to us , but I do not think it can be preserved by sacrificing those very 
principles on which it is based. If the cause of liberty is to be betrayed and crucified in the year 
of grace ISGl, I trust that there will not be found among its apostles a betrayer and crucifier. 

MoGiLL & WiTHEROW, Printers, AVashington, D. C. O^ 







V ^ • j, -r* v 







^^6 







^^ *T 













' **'\ 















• »l5^X<S»k*_ o 







tvT* .v^ 



<X 



'^^ 






,^^\,.v-- ^. 











A <^ - . » 







. ^ 4*^ /^ 












^.^T'* 0*" V^?^'\'^* %'-^f.^^'/ \'W'\^' 










j"^..!.::.' 

























♦ 






